In article <gboggs-010295121542@grunge.advtech.uswest.com>,
George Boggs <gboggs@atqm.advtech.uswest.com> wrote:>In article <3gmh45$ajf@usenet.rpi.edu>, turtom@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Michael>Andrew Turton) wrote:>> >> >> But of course -- you have this weird idea in your head that I>> am maintaining that differences between humans do not exist.[...] All I've >> ever maintained is that concepts for sorting>> people which North Americans define as "races" are so shifting, cultural>> in origin and undefinable that they cannot be used for assertions>> about inheritance.>>I don't believe that is all you have claimed (i.e., "maintained"). I doubt>whether any reader of this thread would believe it, either. Some quotes>from your previous posts...>>For example, "[...] Encapsulated here is one of the fundamental problems of>racial thinking -- its circularity. [discussion of Zulus deleted] We>sorted according to ideas we already had in our heads. Then we measured>the people and -- presto!-- we discover our own assumptions and proclaim>them 'science.'[...]">>Now, this strikes me as a claim that investigations of anthropometric>hypotheses is circular thinking. More.

>>[from a discussion about hypothesis testing and observing that mythical>Atlanteans were taller than mythical Erewhonians] "[...] But if one thinks>that the factor you have projected onto Atlanteans (height) resides in>their genes rather than in your mind, then you have a serious>problem.[...]">>This appears to me you are claiming that (1) stature does not have a>genetic component, and (2) to notice a difference in stature is a>"projection" by the observer rather than a legitimate observation of>reality.>>Furthermore, you make the incredible claim that, rather than random>sampling, anthropometricians merely select "tall" or "short" people and>measure them to confirm the ideas they "already had in [their] head"; e.g.,>>" What you have not done is measured Atlanteans, but measured the mental>'filter' you use to *sort* Atlanteans." [emphasis mine]>>No, Michael, contrary to your assertions, you have maintained far more than>the notion that "[...] concepts for sorting people which North Americans>define as "races" are so shifting, cultural in origin and undefinable that>they cannot be used for assertions about inheritance.">>> [...] Why is it that psychometry>> si still obsessed with "race"[...]>>Ya got me. I don't know, either. Is it "obsessed"? Are you inferring this>"obsession" from TBC?>>> Getting back to Zulus and Japanese......if you put me in a room>> with two people I'd probably be able to nail the Zulu and the Japanese>> every time, simply because your concept of what passes for Zulu and>> Japanese in the real world is so narrow that I could easily distinguish>> it. But all I'd be seeing is the stereotypes which live in the mind of>> the person who created the (useless) room experiment.>>Suppose I selected those two individuals randomly off a list of names>provided to me by the Japanese government and Mr. Buthelezi, without ever>having seen them? What would you say the odds of confusing them were?> >> But having actually been to Africa (and Japan, incidently)>>For the record, I have *actually* been to Africa and Japan (although not>incidentally), as well many other destinations in Asia, Europe, and South>America. So what??>>> dollars to donuts I could find you many japanese and zulus (actually a>> group of peoples) whom you simply couldn't tell apart.>>Your comment is simply a qualitative description of statistical variation.>It does nothing to support your contention that any physical differences>you might detect are due to pre-existing mental stereotypes. Because Zulus>may *exist* who possess identical skin pigmentation to the mean Japanese>pigmentation says nothing about the frequency of such occurrences. Before>we could determine whether you could find "many" or not, we would need to>know the magnitude of the variation, the difference between the means, and>exactly what you mean by "many", would we not?.>>> One of the teachers>> at my school, a local, had MUCH lighter skin then I did. Not being stupid >> like>> we are, the locals never regarded him as anything other than one of their>> own. >>One of the students in my high school was *much* taller than the rest of>us. Not being stupid like some people are, we never regarded him as>anything other than one of our own. So what??

Precisely my point. So what? So why is melanin important?
Why is one set of characteristics important while others are ignored?

>> The people we label "black" have an enormous range of color, origin,>> language and genetic background. >>Yes. This is called "variation". Measures of variation, along with measures>of central tendency, are the two main parameters used in anthropometrics.

>> The room analogy is simpleminded and has no application in>> the real world. Not even the most raving lunatic racist regards the>> the "zulus" as a race of their own -- though the same cannot be said about>> the Japanese. Are they two different races, George? >>Depends on how you define "race", Michael. They are certainly two different>and reliably distinguishable physical subpopulations within the species>(although the distributions may overlap). So, if you define "race" as a>statistically distinct subpopulation, then, yes, they are two different>races. But this definition begs the question "statistically distinct from>what?", so, by itself, is useless without the referent. If you define race>as subpopulations that differ on some set of biological or intellectual>dimensions, or as some sort of canonical categorization of the human>population, I don't know - I doubt it.

I'm curious. What are these two different and reliably distinguish-
able physical subpopulations within the species?

>>> How is "race" to>> be defined so that inheritance can be discussed? >>I really haven't the faintest. I don't think the definition of race>necessarily requires that inheritance be a factor. Moreover, I don't think>there needs to be a single definition of race. I do, however, think it>needs to be defined clearly in each case.>>> What races are present>> in the world today?>>Again, the answer would depend on how one defines "race" (see above).>>> >> I'm delighted to see at last that you've come over to my way of>> thinking, George.>>Well, don't break out the champagne yet. ;-) >>> Never have I maintained that anthropometric subpopulations>> do not exist. >>Oh. To claim that any investigation of such subpopulation differences is>merely a matter of projecting stereotypes and circular thinking is>different from claiming that they do not exist. From this, am I to assume>that you believe that differences exist but it is pseudoscience to measure>them?>>> >> Why no, the value of classifying people for certain projects,>> goals etc still remains. We have never disputed that during the entire>> length of this thread, George.>>What I have disputed is your claim that the measurement of physical>differences is circular thinking and pseudoscience.

But George, when "race" is under discussion
you are not measuring "physical differences" as though you stumbled
upon or arbitrarily created random populations -- you "find" the population
through some socio-cultural process (not science) then search through it
for differences which allow you to preserve some classification which
you have already consciously or unconsciously erected.

Measurement of physical differences *based on "race"* is psuedo-
science. But of course measurement of physical differences can be an
important and useful activity in ergonomics, or sports equipment design,
etc, etc. If you think I am disputing the process of measurement of
homo saps, then re-read the post below and look at how I only claim
"racial thinking" -- NOT ergonomics, etc, -- is circular.

>>> [...] We are>> disputing only certain classifications used to group people, not the>> whole process of classification. >> >>Well, I can only speak for myself in this dispute, but what I am disputing>is your statement: >>"[...] Encapsulated here is one of the fundamental problems of racial>thinking -- its circularity. [discussion of Zulus deleted] We sorted>according to ideas we already had in our heads. Then we measured the>people and -- presto!-- we discover our own assumptions and proclaim them>'science.'[...]">>Michael, on the basis that we now dispute what we are disputing, I retire>from this dispute. It is simply getting too disputatious.>>G. Boggs >gboggs@advtech.uswest.com my opinions alone, thank you